Pages

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

The friend of my enemy

Before I respond to the specifics of Francis Beckwith’s latest salvo against the Protestant rule of faith, I have to say I’m struck by the dichotomy between Manhattan Declaration, with its Kumbaya rhetoric about Catholics and Protestants, over against the scorched-earth rhetoric we often encounter at Called to Communion or Return to Rome. When they want our signature, we’re all one big happy family–but you only have to turn to the Catholic blogosphere to see what they really think of us.

“What is being played-out here on this blog is the legacy of nominalism and Enlightenment epistemology, both of which focus on the thinking self as the locus and meaning of my encounter with the world (assuming there is one). Thus, short of a pure, clear and distinct idea–e.g., a sola scriptura untouched by man or church–it could all very well be a ruse of Descartes’ evil demon”

i) That’s a vicious and malicious caricature of sola Scriptura. Beckwith is a competent philosopher and bioethicist, but as Catholic apologist he’s just another rabid demagogue. It’s like seeing 28 Days Later when the Rage virus kicks in.

ii) And, of course, we’re treated to the usual trope about the “nominalist” antecedents to Protestantism. Well, wasn’t Biel a Catholic theologian? Conversely, wasn’t Calvin an opponent of the Sorbbonists?

“This is why, by the way, various versions of the Cartesian circle keep popping up in the combox. The Protestant wants his indubitable starting point, but he’s trapped in an appalling loop.”

It doesn’t have to be indubitable, although that would be a swell bonus point. It only needs to be the proper starting point.

“If he appeals to sola scriptura that requires a book consisting of over 5 dozen books. But the book appears in time, and not all at once, but incrementally.”

And a Catholic appeals to “the Church.” Yet the church appears in time, and not all at once, but incrementally. So is the Catholic also caught in a Cartesian circle or time-loop?

“And this requires someone to sift through the competing texts, to determine which of them belongs in the book…”

Notice that Beckwith is reading from the same script as Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman. At this point he becomes an enemy of the faith.

But while they’re carefully and laboriously correcting these calculated historical falsehoods, along comes a newbie Catholic revert like Beckwith to resuscitate the same deceptive and destructive propaganda.

…since the book itself does not yet exist as a whole.”

Not to mention the further fact that the church does not yet exist as a whole. Indeed, unlike the Bible, which was complete 2000 years ago, the church is still a work in progress.

“…the whole does not contain in any of its parts the list of what books should be in the book.”

Of course, that’s simple-minded. For one thing it overlooks the pervasive phenomenon of intertextuality in Scripture.

“But suppose you finally figure out what the whole book should look like. Where do you go from there? Numerous questions arise: Is it appropriate with the book’s purpose to translate it into various languages? After all, things get lost in translation.”

Given the fact that Bible writers frequently quote individuals in a different language than they originally spoke, that question answers itself.

“What happens when the book does not specifically address a question that pertains to Christ’s commands to love God and neighbor?”

i) It wouldn’t have to specifically address a question to implicitly address a question.

ii) And where it’s silent, we can use reason. Beckwith, perhaps through self-reinforcing ignorance, is caricaturing sola Scriptura.

“For example, what do we do with folks that deny Christ and want back into the Church.”

Read 1 John for starters.

“The Bible does not mention cloning, abortion, euthanasia, or necrophilia. Are those permitted?”

i) The Bible doesn’t mention abortion? Ever read Exod 21:22-25?

ii) In addition, the Bible gives us a combination of general norms as well as case-laws which we can apply, singly or jointly (as need be), to analogous situations.

“What about more theological doctrines? Is social trinitarianism permissible? It seems inconsistent with Nicea. But if the Arians were supported by politically motivated leaders, perhaps Constantine, who convened the first Nicean council, was just as bad. And what about Nestorianism? Chalcedon rejects it. But it does not reduce to Arianism and is not necessarily inconsistent with the Nicean creed.”

What about making NT Christology our reference point?

“And what about eternal damnation? If God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ, perhaps the whole world will eventually be saved and the ‘eternal’ in ‘eternal damnation’ is an adjective of quality and not quantity?”

Considering the fact that I’ve reviewed all the major books I know of defending universalism, as well as having debated a number of prominent universalists, that example leaves me profoundly unimpressed.

Beckwith has simply given up trying. What is worse, he’s trying to recruit others to share his defeatist view of God’s word.

“I was at ETS during the debates about the Openness of God dispute and the attempt to remove Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders from the society. What a mess. These gentlemen all believed in sola scriptura, and so what the debate degenerated into was a proof-texting war, with each side marshaling its case against the other.”

i) You have a parallel “mess” in historical theology. Opposing sides can prooftext from their favorite traditions, church fathers, &c.

ii) What about a Catholic process philosopher like Nicholas Rescher? Why is open theism out of bounds, but process theology is not?

32 comments:

16th century Reformers already noticed the devious habit of Roman apologists to employ radically skeptical arguments - they tried to shake people's Biblical convictions in order to force them, in despair, to make an uncritical "leap of faith" and submit to the Roman church.

Essentially this trick was based on the fallacy of false dichotomy: telling people that either they must uncritically believe everything that Rome teaches, or they supposedly could not believe in anything at all. In other words, spiritual extortion. "Have faith in us, or we will destroy your faith altogether."

John Calvin wrote this in his Gospel commentary, on the part where Sadducees and Pharisees together harass Jesus Christ:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc33/cc33007.htm

"Thus in the present day, we see all the forces of Satan, though in other respects they are opposed to each other, rising on every hand against Christ. And so fierce is the hatred with which the Papists burn against the Gospel, that they willingly support Epicureans, Libertines, and other monsters of that description, provided that they can avail themselves of their aid for accomplishing its destruction.

...

Nay, the Papists are restrained by no shame from openly ridiculing God and his word, when they attempt to take us by surprise."

Although in all fairness it must be noted that many lukewarm Protestants have similarly shamed the cause of Reformation by citing rationalist, semi-rationalist or just generally secularist argument against Rome - ending up themselves (or their descendants) in liberal apostasy.

You know, the types who think that the greatest thing about the Reformation was that it "freed people from the control of the church" and paved way for the Enlightenment.

"Before I respond to the specifics of Francis Beckwith’s latest salvo against the Protestant rule of faith, I have to say I’m struck by the dichotomy between Manhattan Declaration, with its Kumbaya rhetoric about Catholics and Protestants, over against the scorched-earth rhetoric we often encounter at Called to Communion or Return to Rome. When they want our signature, we’re all one big happy family–but you only have to turn to the Catholic blogosphere to see what they really think of us."

Hi Steve,

I know these remarks are just prefatory, and not the main gist of your post, and I just want to acknowledge that the vehement anti-MD conservative Protestants are being consistent as far as expressing what they really think of Catholicism.

And I am consistent as a joyful signer of the MD whilst being a conservative Protestant because my intent as a signer is to register strong support for the sanctity of life, Biblical marriage, and freedom of religious expression.

I have to say I’m struck by the dichotomy between Manhattan Declaration, with its Kumbaya rhetoric about Catholics and Protestants, over against the scorched-earth rhetoric we often encounter at Called to Communion or Return to Rome.

Online Catholics are only okay with you if you are okay with them. Most seem to want to be accepted by Protestant as brethren hence you end up with something like MD. If you oppose things like the MD you get the jilted lover response.

Notice that Beckwith is reading from the same script as Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman. At this point he becomes an enemy of the faith.

The true colors of a Catholic usually come up when talking about the Bible. That's because they have pitted the authority of Scripture against the authority of mother church and in the end you can only serve one master.

I'm not saying RC's are the number one enemy of the faith, but I also don't think I would agree with what you say. The best lies are the ones that contain the most truth.

Were the false teachers in the NT atheists and pagans or wolves in sheep's clothing? I'm not sure, I would have to go back and study that. But off the top of my head I would see people like the Judaizers (more truths than falsehoods) as the bigger threat to the faith.

Funny. If "the best lies are the ones that contain the most truth" and LibProts are children of the Reformation and claim Sola Fide as their spiritual heritage, then they have the best lies, yes?

And LibProts (which includes Emergers) overwhelmingly oppose the Manhattan Declaration just as the conservative anti-MD Protestants do. Interesting bedfellows, yes? Although it must be noted that they are sleeping with each other for entirely different reasons. But nonetheless, they are still sleeping together in the same bed.

Belief in "Sola Fide" and the denial the true divinity of Christ (this would indirectly include denying the infallibility of the Bible, since Christ would have been less than divine if He had vouched for a fallible book) are mutually contradictory ideas.

Namely, such a denial would directly contradict that fundamental tenet of the Reformation - the salvation by faith in divine Christ's perfect, once-for-all sacrifice on the cross.

If Jesus was not God, then we have no perfect sacrifice made for our behalf, and then we must EARN our salvation instead.

It's only self-righteous PELAGIAN cultic types who are prone to deny His divinity because they think they can be righteous enough to save themselves!

No true Protestant who believes in salvation by faith could agree with this idea.

Ergo, liberal Protestants have no real right to claim the mantle of the Reformation. In fact, they are usually supporters of "social gospel", which is about redeeming themselves and their fellow men with their own righteous deeds in this world.

TU&D... any chance of getting a straight answer from you about whether, in your opinion, Rome proclaims a false gospel? If you do not think so, it would explain why for you "the RCC and the RC's are not 1st-priority enemies."

If (however) you do consider Rome's gospel to be a false gospel, it is puzzling why the issue of the gospel seemingly takes second priority over moral issues like infanticide and sodomy.

Liberal Protestants that openly deny the divinity of Christ or mock the authority of the Bible are a lot easier to recognize as opponents of true Gospel than the RCC that pays a lip-service to Jesus Christ and the Bible. In this sense, we might argue that Rome is a "deeper mole" (enemy agent) than openly liberal unbelievers.

Libprots are like Sadducees, taking away from the Word, while Romanists are like Pharisees, adding their own junk to it. Pox on both of their houses.

Funny. If "the best lies are the ones that contain the most truth" and LibProts are children of the Reformation and claim Sola Fide as their spiritual heritage, then they have the best lies, yes?

No, for the reasons Viisaus said: "Liberal Protestants that openly deny the divinity of Christ or mock the authority of the Bible are a lot easier to recognize as opponents of true Gospel than the RCC that pays a lip-service to Jesus Christ and the Bible."

Maybe my truth/lie statement confused you. Try thinking about the wolves who look most like sheeps.

It's been suggested that LibProts may be the most deadly enemy since their deceptive lies contain the most truth.

Suggested by who, you? You seem to just have an axe to grind with conservative Prots who oppose the MD (which has been going on for weeks now). Sorry I unintentionally gave you another avenue.

Liberal Protestants that openly deny the divinity of Christ or mock the authority of the Bible are a lot easier to recognize as opponents of true Gospel than the RCC that pays a lip-service to Jesus Christ and the Bible

--True, if one has the necessary categories in place to make that recognition, but, to paraphrase John Piper,we increasingly live in a society that lacks those categories.

Now, in a society that lacks those categories, who is the "worst" enemy?

Personally, I think this entire discussion of which enemy is "worse" is a bit like determining which enemy in the OT was worse: the Philistines or Egypt or somebody else. Such a determination would be subject to the historical time, place, and other conditions,would it not?

Personally,I'm a bit more concerned about my best friend who was sexually abused as a little boy and is crying out for help 27 years later or my neighbor who needs Christ badly and whose driveway was blocked in by the snowplow crew the church across the street hired and who told him when he complained that the city would have done no better (that's a great witness for Christ, innit?!)

That's why I've kept quiet about the MD, etc. I used to be Southern Baptist. One thing I learned was that documents come and go and arguments about who signed what will go on and on, but the real work of sharing the true Gospel is done with our neighbors.

"This was recently posted by Baptist theologian, Chris Carter, who teaches John Paul II's Theology of the Body in a class he offers at Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto, Canada:

I taught a new course, RLGS 3943 Marriage in Theological Perspective, this past semester and I had 23 students in the course. My working assumption was that we are all bombarded with the sexual revolution and the liberal view of sex, marriage and family every day and so the course content was to examine the only two serious alternatives to the liberal view, which is now the establishment view in the West, namely conservative Evangelicalism and the TOB. We used a book by Andreas Kostenberger called God, Marriage and Family for the first few weeks and then studied Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body by John Paul II.

But what I really wanted to stress in this post is how positive the students were toward John Paul II's book. They were mostly surprised to be reading a biblical-theological study by a Roman Catholic that seemed to them to be informed by a high view of Scriptural authority and a deep engagement with the text. They found him to be Evangelical in his view and very convincing.

I know that not all Protestants are open to John Paul II's insights just because he is Catholic, but I think that the answer is to present his views as "the conservative and traditional view" of sex as grounded in Scripture. It will be necessary for most Evangelicals to encounter this teaching first in a book written by an Evangelical and I hope to write such a book eventually. But once most conservative Evangelicals get past their prejudice and actually encounter the content of the TOB, their response is almost guaranteed to be positive to one extent or another."

It's actually the conservative anti-MD Protestants who have an axe that they are furiously grinding.

Maybe that's true, but not from the blogs I read that I have seen you comment on. But that's just my opinion, you are certainly entitled to yours.

Personally, I think this entire discussion of which enemy is "worse" is a bit like determining which enemy in the OT was worse...

Gene, I really wasn't trying to say who is worse, just trying to get TUAD to explain his assertion. Not that he has to, I was just curious why he has become such a big Catholic supporter.

One thing I learned was that documents come and go and arguments about who signed what will go on and on, but the real work of sharing the true Gospel is done with our neighbors.

I agree. And I am certainly not interested in seeing the MD thing rehashed for the next few months/years. But the reason the discussion on the MD was important to me (just after it came out) is b/c it becomes more difficult to share the true gospel with our neighbors as the "true gospel" continues to be muddled. As someone surrounded by Catholic family and friends, that issue is very important to me.

Steve Hayshere: "[W]e need to draw a rudimentary, but often overlooked, distinction between the intent of the framers and the intent of the signatories.

Objections to the Manhattan Declaration frequently parallel debates within the religious right every election cycle.

The assumption seems to be that signing the document constitutes a wholesale endorsement of the document. But that’s rather naïve.

It’s like saying a registered Republican must swear by every plank in the party platform. But of course, that’s not how it works in real life. A voter can be quite selective.

Signatories may have different intentions than framers. Likewise, one signatory may have different intentions than another signatory.

A signatory isn't bound by the intentions of the framers. This is not a contract. Likewise, the same document may be put to more than one use."

Dr. Niel Nielson: "Some have pointed to statements from Chuck Colson which reflect his views about the purpose and hoped-for outcome of the Declaration as evidence of how misguided Evangelicals have been in signing. Let me be clear: With as much respect and appreciation for Chuck as I have, I did not – and do not – sign on to his commentaries about the Declaration, nor do I expect him, or anyone else, to sign on to mine. Together we signed the Declaration because of what it states so clearly and well, and I, for one, did so with unswerving conviction about the biblical gospel and the biblical doctrines articulated in the Protestant Reformation."

Your reference from Steve is from an 11/30/09 post. Likewise, Dan Phillips who you said was "so bitter and angry towards the conservative Protestants who sign and support the Manhattan Declaration" wrote his post on 11/30/09.

"So if Dr. Nielson (and other conservative Protestant signers of the Manhattan Declaration) took the same evaluative approach towards the MD as Daniel J. Phillips himself did towards his review of the movie "Avatar" with regards to (failed) authorial intent and "audiencial meaning," then why is Daniel J. Phillips (and other conservative anti-MD Protestants) so bitter and angry towards the conservative Protestants who sign and support the Manhattan Declaration?"

So Carrie, it's well past time for the conservative anti-MD Protestants to stop being so bitter and angry towards the conservative Protestants who signed and support the Manhattan Declaration, don't you think?

As far as I remember, this is my first exchange with you so I am not sure what you mean by that. But fine, this will be my last comment.

So Carrie, it's well past time for the conservative anti-MD Protestants to stop being so bitter and angry towards the conservative Protestants who signed and support the Manhattan Declaration, don't you think?

Again, I'm just confused. From what I saw Dan Phillips hasn't talked about the MD since his post on 11/30 so he seems to have moved on. Of course, I don't think Dan was "bitter and angry" in the first place, I think he just expressed his disappointment with the MD and some of its higher profile signers. And since he seems to have moved on from the topic, I'm not sure what he is suppose to stop doing exactly.

So I'm not sure why Dan (and others according to you) are "bitter and angry" for posting their opinions on the MD and its signers and then moving on, but you are not "bitter and angry" for opposing the opposers even to this day? So Dan (just as an example) should not oppose the MD signers, but you can oppose him? I must be missing something.

By the way, here's my entire sentence:

Yes, I saw your comparison of Dan's evaluation of Avatar vs his evaluation of the MD, but that was an apples to oranges comparison to me.

Anyway, I will leave it at that. Sorry to Steve for contributing to a derailing of this thread :)

“I was at ETS during the debates about the Openness of God dispute and the attempt to remove Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders from the society. What a mess. These gentlemen all believed in sola scriptura, and so what the debate degenerated into was a proof-texting war, with each side marshaling its case against the other.”

I too was at that ETS show. Attended the emotional seminars of Pinnock, Sanders and Boyd.Yet was most disgusted by the philosophical endorsement of Boyd in William Lane Craig's seminar.

I found this philosophy seminar more contemptible than the interpretive discussion over a few troubling passages.

There was no "proof-texting war".

It was a war of interpretation. One side was theological and the other was philosophical.

Roger Nicole made an excellent presentation on this debate(?) in his seminar. And was endorsed by Norm Geisler at its conclusion.

The only "mess" was in watching Nicole's "Theological Society" bow the knee to Craig's "Philosophical Society".

Ron: The only "mess" was in watching Nicole's "Theological Society" bow the knee to Craig's "Philosophical Society".

I did not sleep well after watching that vote.

God help ETS."

Can it be? Could, could, could... the Evangelical Theological Society be blurring and obscuring the Gospel?

Naaaaaah.... They're Sola Fide Protestants.

P.S. Also, it would have been so funny if Francis Beckwith had maintained his membership in the Evangelical Theological Society after he swam the Tiber. As a Catholic he had no problem affirming the Trinity and the Inerrancy of Scripture.

Would the Protestant Sanhedrin against the Manhattan Declaration and who are also members of ETS have resigned their ETS membership if Francis Beckwith had remained a member?

Would having a Catholic in ETS blur and obscure the Gospel in the Evangelical Theological Society?

One of these "protestant" commenters is not like the others,One of these "protestant" commenters just doesn't belong,Can you tell which "protestant" commenter is not like the othersBy the time I finish my song?

One of these "protestant" commenters needs their own blog,Maybe one of these "protestants" thinks theirs is the comment log!

Then would the Protestant Sanhedrin against the Manhattan Declaration and who are also members of ETS have resigned their ETS membership if Francis Beckwith had remained a member?

-----

Ron: The only "mess" was in watching Nicole's "Theological Society" bow the knee to Craig's "Philosophical Society".

I did not sleep well after watching that vote.

God help ETS."

Can it be? Could, could, could... could Sola Fide Protestants in the Evangelical Theological Society be blurring and obscuring the Gospel, or even teaching a false gospel themselves?

Then would the Protestant Sanhedrin against the Manhattan Declaration and who are also members of ETS resign their ETS membership if these Gospel-blurring, Gospel-obscuring, or False Gospel-Teaching Sola Fide Protestants are signatory members of ETS?

Westminster is a rather famous place historically. Well known for being the name on the Westminster Confession, a Confession which is often cited by Reform folks and Calvinist folks on Reform blogs and Calvinist blogs.

Well, lo and behold, there is now a Westminster Declaration which is a more concise adaptation of the Manhattan Declaration.